E-government for better performance: Promises, realities, and challenges

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 30, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1197-1217

  Yang, Kaifeng ^a   Rho, Seung Yong ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Seoul Women University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

E government; Performance; Productivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548442087     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01900690701225556     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Moon, M. J. (2002) The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?. Public Administration Review, 62:4, pp. 424-433.
2. United Nations (UN) (2003) World public sector report 2003: E-government at the crossroads, United Nations, New York
3. United Nations and American Society for Public Administration (UN-ASPA) (2002) Benchmarking E-government: A global perspective, United Nations, New York
4. Blanchard, A. and Horan, T. (1998) Virtual communities and social capital. Social Science Computer Review, 16, pp. 293-307.
5. Frissen, P. (1997) The virtual state: Postmodernisation, informatisation, and public administration. The governance of cyberspace, pp. 111-125. Routledge, London
6. Klein, H. (1999) Tocqueville in cyberspace: Using the Internet for citizen associations. The Information Society, 15, pp. 213-220.
7. Winner, L. (1997) Technology today: Utopia or dystopia?. Social Research, 64:3, pp. 989-1017.
8. Gore, A. (1993) From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and costs less, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
9. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
10. Brown, D. (1999) Information systems for improved performance management: Development approaches in US public agencies. Reinventing government in the information age, Routledge, New York
11. Baddeley, S. (1997) Governmentality. The governance of cyberspace, pp. 64-96. Routledge, London
12. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T. and Scherlis, W. (1998) Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being. American Psychologist, 53, pp. 1017-1031.
13. Grandy Jr., O. H. (1993) The panoptic sort: A political economy of personal information, Westview Press, Boulder, CO
14. Hewson, M. (1994) Surveillance and the global political economy. The global political economy of communication, pp. 61-80. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY
15. Melody, W. H. (1985) The information society: Implications for economic institutions and market theory. In Comor, pp. 21-36.
16. Wilhelm, A. G. (1998) Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on-line political discussion?. Information, Communication & Society, 1, pp. 313-338.
17. Fountain, J. E. (2007) Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
18. Sommer, M. (2002) Quo Vadis, e-government. Journal of Political Marketing, 1:1, pp. 233-236.
19. Melitski, J. (2003) Capacity and e-government performance: An analysis based on early adopters of Internet technologies in New Jersey. Public Performance & Management Review, 26:4, pp. 376-390.
20. Stowers, G. N. (2004) Measuring the performance of e-government, IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, D.C
21. Melitski, J., Holzer, M., Kim, S., Kim, C. and Rho, S. (2005) Digital government worldwide: An e-government assessment of municipal websites throughout the world. International Journal of E-government Research, 1:1, pp. 1-19.
22. Curtin, G., Sommer, M. and Vis-Sommer, V. (2002) American e-government at the crossroads: A national study of major city uses. Journal of Political Marketing, 1:1, pp. 147-189.
23. Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F. and Fletcher, P. D. (2003) Electronic government at the local level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Performance & Management Review, 26:4, pp. 325-344.
24. National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) (2001) Creating citizen-centric digital government: A guide for the states, NASCIO, Washington, D.C
25. Rho, S. (2004) Citizen-Government Interaction and Its Effects on Trust in Government. Doctoral dissertation. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Newark
26. West, D. M. (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitude. Public Administration Review, 64:1, pp. 15-27.
27. Holzer, M., Melitski, J., Rho, S. and Schwester, R. (2004) Restoring trust in government: The potential of digital citizen participation, IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington, D.C.
28. Holzer (2003) Evaluated the largest city in each country so that national political characteristics are likely to strongly affect the municipal political environment.
29. Moon, M. J. and deLeon, P. (2001) Municipal reinvention: Municipal values and diffusion among municipalities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11:3, pp. 327-352.
30. Musso, J. A., Weare, C. and Hale, M. L. (2000) Designing web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy. Political Communication, 17, pp. 1-19.
31. Weare, C., Musso, J. A. and Hale, M. L. (1999) Electronic democracy and the diffusion of municipal Web pages in California. Administration and Society, 31:1, pp. 3-27.
32. Northrop, A. (2002) Lessons for managing information technology in the public sector. Social Science Computer Review, 20:2, pp. 194-205.
33. Gronlund, A. Introduction. Electronic government: Design, applications and management, pp. 1-21. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA
34. Office, General Accountability Information technology management.
35. Office, General Accountability DOD needs to improve process for ensuring interoperability of telecommunications switches.
36. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J. and Stansbury, M. (2003) Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.
37. Rho, S., Kim, Y. and Kwon, Y. Public administrators' attitudes toward digital citizen-government interaction. The 3rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Social Sciences Honolulu, Hawaii